An explanation of the custom to
walk four cubits with the
Afikoman on
the shoulder.

In siman 477 of the Shulchan Aruch, the Acharonim bring in the name of
the Maharshal, in Teshuvah 86, that one should take out the Afikoman
wrapped in a cloth, and throw it over his shoulder, and walk four
cubits with it in the house, and say: Thus did our forefathers go, with
their leftovers bound in their garments on their shoulders.

We need to
understand the reason for this custom - do we need to make an allusion
to every movement that they did at that time?! Is it not enough of a
reminder of our exodus from Egypt all that Chazal fixed for us on this
night, that we have to add also that which they happened to do because
of the particular needs of a particular time? Also, where is this
custom hinted to in the Torah?

But it seems to me that we can explain
all this, by examining that which is written (Shemos 3,21) “and it will
be, that when you go, you will not go empty handed. Each woman shall
ask from her neighbour and the dweller in her house silver and gold
objects and garments, and you shall put them on your sons and your
daughters, and you shall empty out Egypt”. The words “when you go, you
will not go empty handed” appear to be superfluous - since it says
immediately afterwards “each woman shall borrow…and you shall empty out
Egypt”, it follows that they would not go empty handed, so why does it
need to state it?

But it seems to me that there is a special intention behind these
words. Behold, it is written (Shemos 12,34) “The people picked up their
dough before it was leavened, their leftovers bound in their garments
on their shoulders. And the children of Yisrael did according to the
word of Moshe, and they asked from the Egyptians objects of silver, and
objects of gold, and garments”. What is the connection between the two
posukim?

At the end of the fifth perek of the gemora Pesachim, it says: It was
taught, each person takes his Pesach sacrifice in its skin, and throws
it over his shoulder. Said R. Illish, like an Arab. Rashi explained
that this is the way of Ishmaelite merchants. It was always a puzzle to
me - what was R. Illish coming to teach, and why did Chazal see a need
to fix this teaching in the gemora? Also, the Baraissa itself is
appears to be superfluous, because what’s the difference how they
carried the Pesach sacrifice to their houses? But in order to
understand the words of the sages and their riddles, we can say as
follows:

There are many reasons given to explain the cause of the enslavement in
Egypt, and the opinion of many commentaries is that it resulted from
the sin of the sale of Yosef. And it seems to me that this is Chazal’s
intention here. Because in all the matters of Pesach there are
allusions both to the redemption and to the enslavement - the bitter
herbs allude to the enslavement, and the Pesach sacrifice and the
matzos allude to the redemption, but there is no allusion as to why the
enslavement came about. Therefore, they made an allusion that it was
through the sin of the sale of Yosef, because it says there (Bereishis
37,25), after the brothers had thrown Yosef into the pit, “and they
raised their eyes and looked, and behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites came
from Gilead, with their camels bearing spices and balm and laudanum,
going to take it down to Egypt”. And afterwards it says (37,28) “And
Midianite men, merchants, passed by, and they pulled and raised Yosef
from the pit, and they sold Yosef to the Ishmaelites for twenty silver
coins, and they brought Yosef to Egypt”. So by carrying the Pesach
sacrifice thrown over their shoulder, which, as R. Illish (who had the
same question that we had, which was why Chazal informed us about how
they carried the sacrifice) explained, was the way of Ishmaelite
merchants, they alluded to the sale of Yosef, which involved such
merchants, and thereby they reminded us that the slavery came about
because of this sin.

With this we can understand the continuation of the matter above. It is
well known that the Rabbis explained that the spoils of Egypt was wages
for their years of slavery. But this really depends on whether the
slavery had been deserved or not. Because if they had not deserved it,
then, since they had been enslaved for no reason, they deserved to be
paid wages. But if had deserved to be enslaved, because of a previous
sin, then they did not deserve to be paid.

Therefore, for this reason,
Hashem commanded that they ask for the riches, but not to take them
forcibly. Because to all appearances, they did not deserve any wages,
since they were liable for the sin of selling Yosef. But this was only
in deed, but not in thought, because really the sale of Yosef did not
happen because of their intentions, but rather Hashem caused it to
happen, as it brought in the Midrash, parshas Vayeishev. According to
this, they did deserve to be paid for their years of slavery. So the
payment had to be parallel to the sin. Thus, in practice they could not
take their wages forcibly, since in practice they had sinned, and so
did not deserve wages, and therefore they took only by way of request.
But since, in the realm of thought, they did deserve wages, therefore
they really intended to take the spoils.

With this we can understand what is written in Megillas Esther, where
it says (9,16) “but upon the spoils they did not send forth their
hands”, and yet Mordechai and Esther had written in the second set of
letters (8,11) that they were “to plunder their spoils” - could it be
that the people were on a higher level than Mordechai and Esther!

But the intention is like we just explained, because the command of
Mordechai and Esther to plunder the spoils was just like the taking of
the spoils from Egypt. There, they were compensation for their years of
slavery, and here too, they could take the spoils as compensation for
the distress of the decree of Haman which had hung over them. However,
this is only if they had not been deserving of the decree. But if they
had deserved the decree, then they would not deserve compensation.

Now, Chazal said that this decree of Haman was for the sin of their
bowing down to the idol that Nevuchadnetzar had erected, and the reason
why Hashem is not considered to have shown favoritism in this matter,
by annulling the decree of Haman in the end, was because they had bowed
down only in outward appearance, but in their thoughts they were bowing
to Hashem. Therefore, here also Hashem only punished them outwardly.
Accordingly, in the realm of deed they did not deserve compensation,
since in practice they had bowed down, and so they deserved the decree,
but in the realm of thought, in their hearts, they did not sin, and so
deserved compensation.

Therefore, Mordechai told them that in their hearts they should intend
to plunder the spoils, in order that they would recognise that in the
realm of thought they deserved compensation, and to recognise that the
decree was only in appearance, and so there was no favoritism here.
But in practice they should not take. This is why it says “and upon the
spoils they did not send forth their hands”, that is, in their hearts
they desired to plunder the spoils, and their hearts sent forth to
plunder, but their hands they did not send forth to the spoils, because
with their hands, that is, in practice, they did not deserve it.

And
now we can understand the connection between the two posukim that we
brought earlier. Behold, if Yisrael had not remembered the sale of
Yosef, then they would have thought that they deserved to be paid
wages, and they would not have been concerned to take them by way of
request, because they would have said to themselves: Why do we need to
ask for it? We deserve wages by right! But since they carried the
remainder of their dough, tied up in their garments, like the way of
Ishmaelite merchants, as Rashi explained, they remembered that this
enslavement was for the sin of the sale of Yosef, and automatically
they would know that they did not deserve by rights any compensation.
Therefore, they took it only by way of request. This is what it says,
“the people picked up their dough…their leftovers bound up in their
garments on their shoulders”, and therefore “the children of Yisrael
did according to the word of Moshe, and asked the Egyptians” - they
took specifically by way of request, because they understood the reason
for the matter.

But why did they carry the leavening on their shoulders bound up in
their garments? It seems certain that they had horses and donkeys to
carry it, just like they carried all their possessions! But the reason
they did this was because they were thus commanded from the mouth of
Hashem. This is what Hashem said to Moshe in the posuk that we began
with, “and it will be, that when you go, you will not go empty handed”,
that is, that they themselves should not go empty handed, and put the
leaven on their donkeys, but rather they should carry it on themselves,
like the way of the Ishmaelites, in order that they recognise that the
enslavement was because of the sale of Yosef, and from this they will
recognise that they do not deserve by rights any payment, and so they
will only take their wages by way of request. Therefore, the Torah
continues “and each woman will ask from her neighbour” - request, and
not plunder, since they understand the truth.

And since Yisrael were commanded to do this, so the word of the
truthful G-d was in the mouth of the Maharshal, that it is therefore
fitting for everyone to do this, in order that they will have a
reminder of from what cause the enslavement in Egypt sprouted. Thus,
there is support for this custom from both the gemora and the Torah.

Why was Hillel the one who used to
eat matzoh and maror
together?

Thus did Hillel at the time when the Beis Hamikdash existed - he would
sandwich together matzah and maror, and eat them together, to fulfil
that which it says “you shall eat it together with matzos and bitter
herbs”.

The reason why it was specifically Hillel who did this, we can explain
according to the gemora in Berachos - once Hillel was coming from a
journey, and he heard an outcry in the city, and he said: I am certain
that this is not in my house. The Maharsha explained that Hillel used
to teach his household, that if, G-d forbid, something bad happened,
that they should not cry out - he taught them to say “This is also for
the good, and everything is for the good”.

Now, it is well known that the Pesach sacrifice alludes to good, to
redemption, and matzah has two aspects - it could allude to good, to
redemption and freedom, and there is also a side to say that it alludes
to bad, to the bread of affliction, like it says in the Haggadah, “this
is the bread of affliction”. And maror certainly alludes to bad.
Therefore, someone who does not say that the bad things that come from
Hashem are actually good, distinguishes between good times and bad
times. But somebody who believes that the bad things that come from
Hashem are actually good, all times, good and bad, are the same.
Therefore, Hillel would sandwich together the matzah and maror, because
to him their allusions were equal.

And this is the explanation of what
it says, “you shall eat it (the Pesach sacrifice) together with matzos
and bitter herbs” - that because of the matzah and maror, (because of
both the good things and the bad things which had happened to them),
they merited to eat the Pesach sacrifice, and they reached this level.
But if not for this they would not have merited it. Like it says
(Yeshayohu 12,1) “I will thank you, Hashem, for You were angry with
me”,
and (Tehillim 118,21) “I will thank You, for You afflicted me, and You
were my salvation” - (this ‘bad’ thing which happened to me was for the
good, and made me what I am, and for this I thank You).